Pamela Gay is struggling with the problem of silence. She was once the target of an attempted sexual assault by Famous Person A, and fear and worry have kept her and other people quiet. You can read the full story, but what struck me is how convoluted and awkward it sounds because throughout, she can’t name names: It’s person A, person B, person Y, etc. — I kept getting lost. But just the fact that there is this climate of intimidation, that she’s worried about being open and straightforward and just telling her story, says a lot about the situation.
People who identify as skeptics and scientists want to suppress the open discussion of a real situation. Doesn’t that disappoint you?
(via Ophelia. See also fellow astronomer Nicole Gugliucci’s comments.)
I’ve never said this before, but:
Fuckin’ B.
Seriously.
I was just thinking the same thing – how hard the As and Bs make it to follow. It’s like the Wason test. Cards? Uh – confusing. But Pepsi v beer, 17 v 22? Easy.
Sadly, despite her efforts to conceal the identity of the person responsible for this, I expect Pamela will receive the standard compliment of abuse, including but not limited to, “she’s trying to ruin his reputation”.
It would have been easier to follow if the participants were given pseudonyms.
Famous Person A = Groper
Person B = Traitor
etc.
Well I don’t know who persons A or B are, but I do know that’s seriously F’ed up.
Are we criticizing her writing, here? Are we meaning to say she made a bad choice in naming style?
The letters to keep in mind here are PTSD.
The non-profit where B discussed the attempted assault by A was either CFI or the JREF. Does anyone know who has the recordings?
keinsignal @5
Those of us who have been following the situation as it unfolds know who these persons are. I will not embarrass Michael Shermer or DJ Grothe by mentioning any names in a specific order.
Menyambal:
No, we’re criticizing the need for her to write in that manner, because one group of people simply wants Ms. Gay to shut up and not say anything, and even being careful not to name names, she’ll still get a host of harassment and threats.
Fuck.
Reading that whole thing is rage inducing.
Fuck both those guys.
And a truckload of sympathy to Pamela Gay.
There’s the technique of giving them pseudonyms, like calling them “Alvin” and “Bob” (explicitly in quotes the first time, without quotes afterwards, and alphabetically named).
Maybe you should have made it clear the first time exactly what you were criticizing, rather than making it read as if you were totally missing the point and complaining about the designations she used.
@PZ
No disappointment would mean the skeptic community is failing to live up to expectations. That is sadly not the case. It is 100% within what previous evidence would predict so far
@dhall
If everyone else gets it but you consider the fault may not be on the speaker’s fault.
I think it is quite clear who this is being critical of. These lines:
are a bit of a give away. It refers to the situation, the climate of intimidation, that forces people to use such designations.
-_-
As a reminder of the backstory, here’s the resounding, inspiring talk Dr Gay gave in 2012:
http://www.starstryder.com/2012/07/15/make-the-world-better/
and the backlash she was given in return:
http://www.starstryder.com/2013/11/06/truth-against-humanity/
Confusing? I dunno. Either I’m not confused, or so confused I don’t know it.
(Disclaimer: Being F, maybe I’m just used to it?)
But let me get this straight: B, for the last 5 years, has been telling this story unbidden, with names, whenever B thought it was a good idea. Then starts blabbing it around his org and gets it maybe recorded in two meetings. Then B essentially threatens Pamela Gay with making very public denials about this, apparently because B stirred the shit up too much, and wants Pamela to deny it too?
What. The. Fuck.
Honestly, if it were me, I’m not sure whose behavior I would feel more violated by, A’s or B’s.
It’s fucked up on so many levels I can hardly count.
Fuck B
Yeah. Pretty clear who is the object of PZ’s criticism. Not “doesn’t name names” not “refuses to name names” not “deliberately makes things confusing by not naming names”….can’t name names. Why? Because of a climate of intimidation, because of self-described “skeptics” and “scientists” engaging in “suppress[ion]” of “open discussion”. Where’s the confusion?
@F
I speak for no one but myself (and my off-line name is not Pamela Gay), but I’ve had people grab my breasts before, entirely unbidden and unwelcome.
I’m telling you right now, I’d feel more violated by B. A was a threat to my autonomy and my body, sure, but A had no intention of creating long-term repercussions for me.
B isn’t responding to being cornered by my publication of the event. B publicized the event – presumably for reasons that benefited B, whatever those may be – but wanted absolute control over exactly how far it was publicized and how the story affected B’s life. Finding out that a loose lip was about to sink B’s ship, B knowingly threatens Pamela Gay with a lie, attempting to coerce her into public action that can only hurt her (in the area of credibility if nothing else, but I think we all know it will affect more than that), by threatening other actions that will hurt Gay more if Gay does not comply. And all this is an intentional series of actions, over longish periods of time, to protect B from the consequences of B’s own actions.
Fuck B’s threats and the electrons they rode in on.
Dr. Gay has been blacklisted from TAM since her 2012 talk. Her harasser has been an invited speaker every year since. Coincidence?
Can we in the comments at least dispense with the A and B facade? I mean we know it’s (allegedly) Shermer and Growthe right?
Hmmmm. Thanks, Crip Dyke, for your thoughts. I imagine I’d lean towards feeling more violated by B, especially given the increasing level of distress caused over an extended period right up to an outright betrayal. But I’m not a woman. I pretty much have default-mode privilege.
@Ing:
You can, of course, do anything you like. Me, I’ll keep up with A & B since only Assailant, Betrayer, and Gay can confirm, meaning that any certainty I hold on the issue could be taken as evidence that Gay has been disclosing this information.
So for me, I won’t do anything that could increase Gay’s risk.
But on top of this, this is the language Gay has chosen to use. When I’m telling someone else’s story, I default to their language, whether it’s for pronouns used to refer to that person, characterization of events as good or bad, or whether it’s that person’s choice to tell an event with a deliberate lack of identifying details.
Now, I don’t know Gay, and I’m not some staple at skeptical conferences or events, but since I blog pseudonymously, that can’t be confirmed. So I’m respecting Gay’s wishes and keeping Gay’s risk level where Gay was comfortable leaving it.
Probably not, but you are making a generalisation from two datapoints.
Crip Dyke @19:
In your case, I’m sure that’s true. But in Gay’s case, A is much more malicious:
That’s using her as a trophy and defense, while freely changing her account to suit his needs.
Putting the onus on the victim to police his behavior, trying to use himself as a hostage.
And of course, using his money to silence his victims. Gay was too charitable when she called this person a “bastard.”
Er. This:
should have read:
My bad. :P
re @15:
I just watched a DVD of “Dallas Buyer’s Club”, and there was a similar scene there in. Where the female doctor, as part of the AZT double-blind study, reduced all the AZT trials to minimal dosage (based on evidence that AZT had toxic side-effects). The lead doctor asked her, “Why?” Her reply was, “I’m their doctor and there is evidence it is toxic”. He storms away, muttering “You aren’t authorized blah blah blah” Next scene is a board room meeting where that lead doctor announces, “We think it is best for everyone here that you resign.” To which she pauses, incredulous, and replies, “No I will not. If you want me gone, FIRE ME.” Then walks out of the meeting. [end of scene] The movie doesn’t reveal if she was fired or not; but it was a very effective illustration of the misogynistic power structure of that hospital.
So, as I understand it from reading Dr. Gay’s account, Person B physically intervened before Person A actually made contact. That’s good (of course). But it raises a couple of questions about Person B. Does ze have abnormally fast neurons & muscle fibers? Does ze have precognitive, psychic, or other paranormal capabilities?
I ask because when I’m standing in a group with two other people and I see one person’s arm & hand start to move, my first response isn’t to physically interpose myself in some fashion between the two people. In most cases, my default assumption about hand/arm movement is not “whoa, ze’s about to assault the other person.” By the time I were to recognize an intended grope as such, I’d be too late. I could stop it quickly, just not preemptively.
So maybe, just maybe, Person B’s thought processes had incorporated some priors, some information & experience vis-a-vis Person A that would lead them to assume that those first faint stirrings of movement of Person A were an impending sexual assault. Now, what on Gaia’s green earth could that information/experience have been?
@Ing #21
I figured it was either Shermer or a guy whose name rhymes with “Torrence Mouse”.
HJ Hornbeck:
Fair enough.
I was only speaking for me, but for me the actions of B would cause me to question B’s very intervention.
I would have, at the time, perceived such intervention as protecting me. B’s actions since would make me wonder if I ever had it right, if B ever had any interest other than B’s own in mind. If that was the case, then I was just an object, a tool for B’s purpose every bit as much as A’s.
Different purposes, sure, but still, an object to be used towards a goal. That kind of betrayal and the second guessing it causes hurts.
A I can blame from beginning to end. A commits awful action and wants to escape awful action. But B? B makes me wonder if I can even trust actions that **appear on their face to be for my benefit**. I would have to wonder if I am ever, if I **have been ever** anything but a thing for the men in my work environment.
Since not everyone tries to grab my breasts, I can consign A to a minority of douchecanoes. Since people do nice things for me all the time, where does B fit?
How do I fit in relation to B?
Again, I have no idea how Gay feels.
For me, it’s this pernicious bullshit of B that poison’s my workplace and social circle forever.
Crip Dyke:
I agree with you.
The president of a major skeptical organization has threatened a woman, whom he knows for a fact to be the target of a sexual assault. Does anyone think there will be repercussions, or will there merely be more attaboys from the pro-harassment crowd?
Crip Dyke @30:
It’s like being asked if you want to be shot in your right knee or your left elbow. Both are horrible, albeit in different ways. The only olive branch I can extend B is that they made no secret about it, to people who asked, and at least initially it looks like they legitimately tried to help Gay.
Now, sadly, they’re threatening to destroy her reputation and career. And for what? Their motives on that front appear to be entirely self-serving, drawn from a simple calculus of “who can cause me the greatest pain?”
They don’t seem to realize what a skeptic movement, increasingly pissed off after years of coverups and denial, could inflict on them.
kellym @32:
A better question to ask would be how many skeptics are pro-harassment. I suspect that number’s taken a dive over the last two years, due to exposure over the issues if nothing else.
HJ:
While true, B’s actions include betrayal of trust, so I do not think he deserves an olive branch.
I’ve been losing esteem for the public figures who’ve continued to attend That Anonymous Meet-up for the last couple of years, but after this, it’s getting very simple: if you go there now, whether as speaker, guest, or paying customer/attendee, YOU ARE TRASH.
Corvus:
You’re casting a wide net there.
Remember that these conventions may be attended by people that are new to the skeptic/atheist community. They may know nothing about any horrible actions on the part of organizers or speakers.
Yes. I am. And I think it is justified, now. Previously, as I noted, my disdain was of a lesser degree and more narrowly focused.
I think the number of incidents of harassment and generally misogynistic behavior at atheists and skeptical events has been well enough publicized that “well I didn’t know that!” doesn’t wash anymore. Even for newcomers to the so-called community. Simple web searches for conference names yield results which include red flags if not direct descriptions of the problems in question.
And I realize speakers may feel like they are in a lose-lose situation. Appear to be supporting behavior which they may not personally condone, or miss connecting with a larger audience. That’s hard, it’s true. But there’s a lot of unfairness and difficult decisions in this mess.
I find myself relieved that I never got up the money to go to any (skeptic) cons, and depressed that this is once more a common telling.
I was disappointed when I saw regular TAM MC George Hrab supporting John Raels’ Top Ten Rules for TAM YouTube video, especially the “don’t bring up elevator gate or any skeptical drama rule”.
It is a spit in the face when these people dismiss what happened to Pamela Gay and make it something that should be avoided instead of making moves to help. Worse, laughing about it.
You cannot improve things by making a joke about it or dismissing a chance for improvement with “you would have done something different if it happened to you — and it didn’t happen to you so there’s nothing to be drama-queening about” like the gaslighters Drescher, Mayhew, Dunlop etc.
It needs to be dealt with. Period.
Hj Hornbeck wrote:
Is TAM attendance down? Are some of these organizations starting to have trouble raising funds? I haven’t heard that either of these have been the case, so I’m not terribly hopeful that it’s just going to happen now.
Weren’t there complaints that the numbers were down back in 2012? From what I saw during the search I just did, there were 1600 attendees in 2011, and only 1200 in 2012, and the percentage of women attending droped to 31% from 40%. http://themorningafter.us/female-attendance-down-at-tam-the-annual-atheists-meeting/ I have not been able to find anything official yet, so perhaps others know better.
No idea about last year, but maybe others have some knowledge of this.
I think B got in the way to protect A from an incident that could blow up in his face, not to protect Pamela Gay. This would explain B’s subsequent behavior – he never was acting in her interest.
Corvus Whiteneck @28
If your speculation about B’s prior experience is correct, then B may be practiced at keeping A out of trouble.
Ptreryxx @15:
If I’m not mistaken, that was the first post-Elevatorgate TAM, and I remember being very impressed when I heard about Ms. Gay’s speech. If I recall correctly, it was well-received in the room at the time, but of course later the pro-harassment brigade had their say.
kellym@32:
I trust that’s a rhetorical question.
HJ Hornbeck @33:
In percentage terms, I expect it’s the opposite, at least if you’re measuring “skeptics” by self-identification rather than some objective criteria. Many of us have simply stopped identifying as skeptics. It was a label that was a little odd to begin with, and now I’m happy to discard it.
So, since the dudebros will take B’s denial now as The Truth™, how will they account for his former “lying*”?
*I hope it’s clear that to me it seems much more plausible to be the other way around
fiendish @39
I could be wrong, but listening to the latest Geologic podcast (episode 364) I get the feeling George might be rather pissed off about this himself. There’s a short segment that starts around 31 min 50 called “some quick advice” where he says, and I quote:
“Here’s a word of advice to anyone in the future who would like me to help them with a video project. If you want me to make a video for something that you’re working on, make sure the thing that you’re working on doesn’t insult a good friend of mine.”
There’s more on the podcast. I have no idea which video he’s on about but given your reaction to the TAM video (which I haven’t watched) I can’t help but think that it’s in response to that.
fiendish:
“John Rael’s…don’t bring up elevator gate or any skeptical drama rule…”
I fully support such a rule. I just wish Rael had followed it himself, rather than participating in a harassment campaign against Surly Amy, as a substitute target for Rebecca Watson. But that’s the way it works. It only counts as “drama” when the target hits back.
Speaking of continued support for TAM, I really can’t fathom what’s wrong with the SGU. Are the Novella boys really that fond of poker and whatever else Vegas to offer?
Sili @47
SGU is produced “in association” with the JREF (i.e. money).
Sili #47
I’ve wondered that, too, especially since they seem very supportive of Watson and of feminist issues generally. It’s kinda annoying because I don’t know how to interpret their actions (or lack thereof). Are they supporting TAM or are they just refraining from public criticism? Are they working critically from the inside or are they totally on board?
I get why they might not want to draw the show into that discussion, but on the other hand, I can’t help but feel that they ought to use what clout they have to push in the right direction. If DJ knows that his big names will keep showing up, drawing attendees, and not say anything against him, what motivation is there to change?
Is SGU produced in association with the JREF anymore? I don’t think they say that in their podcast credits anymore, and haven’t for awhile. That said, I suspect the SGU dinner/live show/auction stuff at TAM makes up for a lot of the SGU’s fundraising.
It’s (pretty much the only reason now) why I have a hard time writing off absolutely everyone involved with TAM; I think Rebecca Watson has shown clearly that she’ll cut ties with people who don’t merit association, but she still stands with the other SGU folks, and they with her. I’d like to think the SGU is the remaining foot in the door for the forces of decency at TAM.
Left elbow. I’m right-handed, and I need my knees for walking and running; also, elbows are simpler than knees (no meniscus, for example), so they probably heal more easily.
What have I missed…?
Gilliel @44
Eh what? We have always been at war with East Asia.
sarah00 @ 45
When I got to that point in Geos’ podcast I figured, “Boy, when the details on this eventually get out, it’s going to be epic.”
I still don’t know what it’s about, but listening to him…he …was … pissed!
I’ve listened to about 300 of the 364 ‘asts he’s done, and I’ve never heard him sound so angry.
@45 sarah00
@53 grantly
Mystery solved:
John Raels’ Top Ten Rules for TAM video was edited to remove Hrab’s contribution, but it wasn’t because it had jokes / a rule not to talk about Elevatorgate & civility ‘drama bullshit that no one wants to hear about’.
…
Hrab’s contribution was pulled because of the jokes about his good friend Phil Plait and the TV show Bad Universe.
I once heard a song about being disappointed.
I’ve just watched the youtube video Top Ten Rules for TAM and I’m a little confused. Sure, they make fun of Plait, but it seems pretty mild. Is there a history I’m unaware of or was the previous video more vicious? What am I missing, here?
fiendish @54:
Ahhhh, that makes more sense. Plait doesn’t have a sense of humour, and can’t do self mockery. He’d toooootally be hurt by a gentle ribbing.
[cough]bullshit[cough]
Oh yeah, and while I’m around: I should probably clarify my “where would you like to be shot?” comment. As Marjanović nicely pointed out, while the two spots are roughly as bad for me, they may not be for thee. Different experiences lead to different values, and as both are based on the evidence both are justified.
Sorry for looking like I was arguing otherwise, to Crip Dyke or anyone else. Bad writin’ on my part.
@ 55 LykeX
1. I found out that it ‘isn’t so funny’ to hear this —
Most people who say that TAM happens in the hallway were paid to be there and were too busy networking to get a TV show, than to put any thought or effort into producing a nuanced lecture for a discerning skeptical audience
when the most ‘Googlable’ review of said TV show, by quoted above, is a hatchet job.
@ 56 Hj Hornbeck
2. Do some research by asking actual sources and you won’t [Bullshit yourself]
I once spoke with Steve Novella about whether they’d be interested in doing more live shows. The problem is, as he explained, that they’re a big team with lots of recording equipment, so they are extremely limited in their options — it’s expensive to haul in SGU. It is reasonable and sensible that they maintain ties with the few meetings that have been willing to meet the necessary commitment, and it’s not easy to propose expanding into new areas.
Please refrain from posting links to that asshole John Rael’s “comedy”. He’s not funny. It’s kind of embarrassing to have a guy who’s idea of funny is a kick to the groin to be in any way representative of skepticism.
Also, to be fair, I wasn’t that impressed with Phil Plait’s television venture — it tried too hard to appeal to lowbrow BS. I think he would have been more successful if he’d set a higher standard, as I know he can.